[EL] Doe v. Reed, more news

[Paul Lehto]

Citizens signing petitions for ballot access are acting in a
quasi-legislative capacity.  Like politicians, for a brief moment they have
to put their name and contact address "out there" just like any politician
running for office or holding office.  People in general are hardly
reluctant to sign -- ciculating petitions and then substituting voter
registration forms is a common method of "slamming" or changing people's
voter registrations without them really knowing what's happening.  (See YPM
- Young Political Majors, in California circa 2006 for example)

What I asked you to think about, however, was the fact that the US legal
system is based upon the idea of waiting for a harm to occur, if it does,
and then, and only then, redressing it. Not dealing with hypothetical harms,
(except where they are imminent and irreparable in nature, in which case
injunctive relief is available).

The class you seek to protect has the following characeristics:

1. Far less than about 1% actually experience any significant contact or
"harassment" of any kind.

2.  A higher percentage of people placing yard signs in their lawns for
candidates or causes experience this kind of reaction complained of.  Should
everyone have the right to place a sign in someone else's yard randomly so
as to disguise the identity of the speaker and their address?

3. Of those who do experience anything significant, it's not been
convincingly shown why existing legal remedies are inadequate for petition
signers, when existing legal remedies like restraining orders and the like
are adequate for far more serious crimes like murder, stalking and the like.
Why is this weak harassment so deserving of a kind of prior restraint that
few if any other activities obtain?

If it weren't for the fact that there's a significant amount of political
firepower lined up in the pro-secrecy camp, in  my opinion cases with the
kind of weak facts presented to the Washington State Supreme Court would be
dismissed rather quickly, and sanctions would be asked for, but NOT
granted.

Political actors, whether they be politicians or citizens briefly acting as
political actors by signing a petitions, are not the functional equivalent
of undercover agents.  They don't need to be undercover agents in 99%+ of
all cases, and even when they do desire this, their desire adds up to little
or nothing when indulging that desire destroys fundamental checks and
balances the system needs for its basic legitimacy.

Instead, I'll help along with others to organize a network of pro bono
attorneys to help with restraining orders and the like if there are any REAL
cases of political harassment for petition signers of any political
persuasion.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

PS  In WAshington state, restraining orders are handed out almost like
candy, at times becoming an almost traditional kickoff for a divorce
proceeding, effectively awarding custody to one side from the very start.
So there should be no problem getting one of these even Pro Se, provided one
has even minimal genuine facts that suggest a reasonable fear for one's
safety.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

> ** ** ** ** ** ** **
>
> Thanks, Paul.  I have thought about it, and read your response, and have
> concluded that it’s not a workable standard and I don’t think it is designed
> to be.  Unless you are part of a larger organization with a history of
> harassment, the only way to meet the standard to protect your anonymity is
> to have your name and address be released and then be subject to
> harassment.  At that point, you can go into court and say, “I’d like to
> remain anonymous because I released my name and address and I got a brick
> through my window.”  The judge can then reply, “But your name and address is
> already out there.  What can I do?”
>
> ** **
>
> In other words, except for the Socialist Workers Party (who, like the
> NAACP, would probably not qualify today for the protections of their
> contributors recognized in their eponymous cases), individuals and new
> political movements will never qualify for the exemption until it’s too
> late.  This may explain why the Socialist Workers Party exemption is rarely,
> if ever, used by anybody but the Socialist Workers Party.  While Catch-22
> may make for an entertaining satire of the military bureaucracy, it does not
> make for an adequate standard when the issue is the protection of people
> exercising their constitutional rights.****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2011 10:42 AM
> *To:* Bill Maurer
> *Cc:* Hamilton, Kevin J. (Perkins Coie); JBoppjr at aol.com; ABonin at cozen.com;
> rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu; Bev Harris
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Doe v. Reed, more news
> ****
>
>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:****
>
>   [snip] ****
>
> 2.                  It would seem that, under the district court’s
> decision, unless you are part of some larger group that is routinely is
> harassed and coerced, the only way to successfully argue that you will be
> subject to harassment and coercion if your name and address is released is
> to demonstrate that you’ve suffered harassment and coercion because your
> name has been released.   At that point, what’s the point?  The only thing
> that gets the signer protection is the very thing the signer wishes to
> avoid.  How is that a workable standard?****
>
>  ****
>
> I’ve never heard an answer to either of these questions.****
>
>
> Just think, Bill.  One has to suffer actual, cognizable and usually
> pecuniary harm to have standing in any court in the ****United States****.
> Thus, following your logic above, you attack the ****US**** legal system
> as a whole, because "the only thing that gets the signer [plaintiff]
> protection is the very thing the signer [plaintiff] wishes to avoid.  How is
> that a workable standard?"
>
> Sure, there's also injunctive relief, but injunctive relief typically
> requires a showing of the inadequacy of legal remedies, and also a showing
> of IMMINENT and irreparable harm.  These are standards that can't possibly
> be shown in order to establish a justification for the kind of extremely
> broad petition-signer secrecy that is being advocated here and elsewhere.
> THey don't want petition signer secrecy/unaccountability just where it can
> be proved in a court of law, they want it everywhere.
>
> By asking why one has to wait around and see if one is damaged or harmed in
> the feared way, one is suggesting that mere inchoate fear without the
> specifics necessary for an injunction or restraining order should be enough
> to justify a blanket secrecy rule for petition signing.  But such blanket
> secrecy renders checks and balances on the validity of those signatures
> essentially meaningless.
>
> The very foundation of our legal system requires a showing of actual harm
> or at least imminent harm combined with a likelihood of prevailing on the
> merits, prior to taking legal action. Otherwise the action is not ripe, or
> it is moot and purely speculative.    Particularly where speech is involved,
> PRIOR RESTRAINTS are  highly disfavored, and the action being advocated here
> by some here is in the nature of a prior restraint intended to prevent
> speech or action that might possibly be harassing toward someone.   So that
> is why everyone, not just petition signers, has to "wait around" to see if
> their fears come true to a sufficient extent to be heard in a court of law.
>
> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor****
>
>   ****
>
> Thanks,****
>
>  ****
>
> Bill  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> ****P.O. Box 1**
> **Ishpeming**, **MI**  **49849****
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>



-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111020/fb5955d7/attachment.html>